Montag, 30. Juli 2012

The Court grants the Joint Liquidators' motion for substitution as Plaintiff nunc pro
tunc to June 8, 2010 and grants in part and denies in part their request that the Court take
judicial notice. The Court overrules the parties' objections to each others' evidence. Finally,
because the Stanford Entities' COMI is in the United States and they have an establishment
in Antigua, the Court grants the Antiguan Proceeding foreign nonmain recognition, granting
in part and denying in part the Joint Liquidators' petition for recognition. The Court grants
the Joint Liquidators limited, conditional relief under Chapter 15.

In accordance with this Order, the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to terminate
Peter Wastell and Nigel Hamilton-Smith as Plaintiffs and add Marcus Wide and Hugh
Dickson as Plaintiffs.

Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 Richard R. Cheatham moves to intervene in this action in order to
protect his interest in the subject of the action and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to suspend
the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012 pending reconsideration in light of the
facts presented in connection Intervener's Motion to Intervene.

In support of this motion, Richard R. Cheatham relies on the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order
of July, 3, 2012 and his Memorandum In Support of Motion To Intervene and To Suspend Memorandum
Opinion and Order of July, 3, 2012.

On July 24, 2012, Richard Cheatham filed a motion to intervene and to "suspend" the Court's July 3
Opinion—three weeks after the fact. Although he provides no documentary evidence in support of his
assertions, Cheatham contends that brokers from the Stanford Group Company ("SGC") purchased
Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("SIBL") CDs for him without his knowledge, and that the SEC
failed to consider the "atypical" nature of these CD purchases in pursuing its case. The Court
should reject Cheatham's thirteenth-hour motion for three separate and independent reasons...

Dienstag, 17. Juli 2012

HSBC left America's financial system exposed to exploitation by drug cartels and terrorist organisations due to its
failure to comply with anti-money laundering laws, according to a damning US Senate report.

These are two of the findings in a 340-page study from the US Senate that accuses Britain's biggest bank of a series
of compliance lapses between 2004 and 2010.

HSBC, the only British bank with a branch network in America, failed to properly staff its compliance department and
wrongly designated Mexico as a "low-risk" country.

The findings are a major embarrassment for HSBC, some of
whose senior executives will appear before the Senate committee
tomorrow to explain the failings.

In one of the more damaging accusations, the report says HSBC
resumed providing banking services to a Saudi Arabian bank
despite speculation it had links to financing terrorism.

In an emailed statement, HSBC said the Senate report had
provided "important lessons for the whole industry in seeking
to prevent illicit actors entering the global financial
system".

The bank said it is spending more money on compliance and has
become more coordinated in policing high-risk transactions.

HSBC is also criticised by the committee for designating
Mexico as "low-risk" despite the widespread use of the country's
banking system by drug cartels. The decision made it easier
for money to be moved between HSBC's affiliate bank in Mexico
and its network in the US. Its Mexican bank should have been
treated as a "high-risk correspondent client subject to
enhanced due diligence and monitoring," the report said.

The report also contained strong criticism of the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, a top US bank regulator,
saying the regulator failed to crack down on the bank despite
multiple red flags, allowing money laundering issues
"to accumulate into a massive problem".

HSBC has warned investors that it could face a significant
fine in the US, with some analysts speculating the penalty
could reach $1bn.

"Accountability is essential and that is what has been
missing here," said Carl Levin, the chairman of the committee on
permanent investigations. HSBC said last night that it had
taken several steps to improve its compliance, including
doubling its spend on compliance and enforcing standards
globally.

Donnerstag, 12. Juli 2012

Dear Chairwoman Schapiro,
I write to respectfully request that the Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC) file an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, seeking to overturn
the July 3, 2012 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert
L. Wilkins in the matter of SEC v. Securities Investors
Protection Corporation (SIPC), Civil Action No. 11-mc-678.

As you know, this case involves the matter of restitution for
the victims of the former Stanford Financial Group under
the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) of 1972. In
July of 2011, in its capacity as the regulator of SIPC, the SEC
ordered a liquidation and payment under SIPA to certain
affected customers of the former Stanford companies. SIPC however,
refused to comply with the SEC’s order, which led to the
court proceedings and ultimately, the decision rendered by Judge
Wilkins denying SIPA coverage for the Stanford victims.

In the Sixth Congressional District of Louisiana and
throughout the country, financial restitution under SIPA represents
the last hope for many of Stanford’s victims to regain that
which was taken from them more than three years ago. All I
ask on behalf of these American citizens is for the SEC to
honor the commitment they made back in July of 2011 by continuing
to pursue all legal avenues which could result in the
determination by the SEC that Stanford’s victims are entitled to
SIPC coverage.

As the United States Representative for the area perhaps
hardest hit by this tragedy, I have been confronted almost daily
since my service began in 2009 with the heartbreaking stories
and tragic outcomes that have befallen my constituents
affected by Stanford. Enclosed with this letter is a message
sent to me by one of those Louisiana citizens, Jean Ann
Mayhall, who speaks both of the devastating impact of this
ruling and offers a number of compelling arguments for the
SEC to consider as you to decide whether to pursue an appeal.
Ms. Mayhall’s words undoubtedly represent the hopes of
thousands of Stanford victims who will quite literally see
any chance for strongly consider those views during your
deliberative process.

Once again, I ask you to continue to pursue the course of
action that began when the SEC declared, rightfully, that
many of the Stanford victims are entitled to coverage from
SIPC by filing to appeal the ruling by Judge Wilkins. If I can
provide any assistance or support to you or the SEC, please
contact me at 202-225-3901. Thank you.

Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012

The Court is truly sympathetic to the plight of the SGC
clients who purchased the SIBL CDs and now find themselves
searching desperately for relief. Robert Allen Stanford's 110
year sentence may bring some measure of justice to the
SGC clients, but it will not make them financially whole. But
this Court has a duty to apply the SIPA statute as
written by Congress, and, as other courts have done, this
Court also has a duty to construe narrowly the "customer"
definition of the statute. For the foregoing reasons, the SEC
has failed to meet its burden, by a preponderance of the
evidence, of proving that SIPC has "refus[ed] . . . to commit
its funds or otherwise to act for the protection of
customers of any member of SIPC." Indeed, because the issue
turns on uncontested facts and an interpretation of law10,
the Court holds that the SEC would have failed to meet even
the lesser burden of probable cause. The Application of
the SEC is therefore denied. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum.

Upon consideration of the Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission to compel Respondent, Securities
Investor Protection Corporation, to commence a liquidation proceeding (Docket No. 1), the oppositions and replies
thereto, and oral argument, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED, that:
The Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission is DENIED; and it is, FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
dismissed with prejudice.

Seven Baton Rouge residents and firms are suing the federal
government for negligence and misconduct they say caused
their loss of approximately $3.5 million to the massive Ponzi
scheme operated by Houston entrepreneur Robert Allen Stanford.

"You can't sue the government simply for making mistakes," attorney Edward J. Gonzales III said; "You can sue the government
for negligence and deliberate misconduct," Gonzales added.

It is clear that the OIG report found violations of federal
laws and regulations by Barasch. He violated those rules and duties
to the investing public in general and to these plaintiffs in
particular. In addition, Barasch may have committed multiple criminal
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 as well as other violations
that facilitated Stanford's crimes and obstructed federal
investigations.
Had Barasch not done as he did, none of the plaintiffs would
or even could have invested with SIBL - it's doors would have been
shut - and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs would have
been completely avoided. Like the federal employees in Limone v
United States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Mass 2007); 579 F 3d 79
(2d 2009), who engaged in subordination of perjury and obstruction
of justice in the course of their duties as federal agents, Spencer Barasch has by his conduct rendered
the United States liable to the plaintiffs.

Alternatively, the conduct of Spencer Barasch referred to herein was negligent.

Additionally, the failure of Barasch's superiors to properly
review and supervise his conduct - simply put, to find out that he
was not making outside referrals as he said he was - was
negligence, not an exercise of law enforcement discretion or policy
discretion. They did not "decide to allow" this conduct.
Rather, they should have discovered it and negligently failed to do so.
Had they identified Barasch's misconduct, there is no doubt
that the SEC and other agencies would then have acted differently and
effectively against Stanford.

The plaintiffs purchased their investments, which have been determined to be without value by the Stanford Receiver. The
government is therefore liable to the plaintiffs in the
amounts they purchased. As further damages for loss of their
opportunities
to earn on their investments, the plaintiffs also claim as
damages the interest that investments in legitimate CD accounts would
have earned since the date the receivership was filed, until
paid.

Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all persons or entities, who have suffered losses of investments
with Stanford International Bank, and file administrative
response, excluding any class member who timely elects to be excluded
from the Class ("the Class"). Plaintiffs allege that all such
class members were damaged or sustained investment losses as a
proximate cause and result of the negligence and deliberate
misconduct by Spencer Barasch and the negligent supervision of Barasch
by the SEC.

As of the present date, the United States of America has the administrative ability to identify all members of the Class, as it
has received their claims.

Membership in the Class is so numerous as to make it impractical
to bring all Class Members before the Court. The exact number of
Class Members is unknown, but can be determined from the United
States of America's claim records. Plaintiffs reasonably estimate
and believe that there are approximately two thousand (2,000) in
the Class. Although Plaintiffs do not presently know the names
of all Class Members, their identities and addresses can be
readily ascertained from the United States of America's records.

Plaintiffs and all Class Members have suffered similar damages
as a result of the negligence and intentional misconduct of the
United States of America's employee, Spencer Barasch, as well as
the negligent supervision of its employees of the U.S. Government.